Don Macpherson: Stumbles keep Charbonneau commission on defensive

Don Macpherson, The Gazette03.06.2013

Don Macpherson

Justice France Charbonneau appeared to lose patience with Martin Dumont’s lawyer, Suzanne Gagné. At one point, she told the lawyer to “lower your tone.” She eventually called a brief morning recess, after which she reluctantly agreed to allow Gagné to cross-examine Robert Pigeon - the investigator who questioned Dumont on Dec. 11.Charbonneau Commission
/ Charbonneau Commission

But it’s in danger of becoming one, as it careers along at high speed and apparently out of control, rocking and rolling with never more than two wheels on the ground.

This week, it slammed into reverse, going back over the most sensational testimony of its fall hearings after belatedly noticing inconsistencies in what the witness had told the commission.

It took the commission several weeks to notice important discrepancies between Martin Dumont’s statements to its investigators and his subsequent testimony.

Now Dumont’s credibility is in tatters, and the realization that the commission didn’t corroborate his statements before having him testify has raised doubts about the allegations made by other witnesses.

This, in turn, brought into question the assurance by the commission chair, Justice France Charbonneau, at the end of the fall hearings that “everything introduced into evidence has its usefulness.”

By then, the commission was already on the defensive, against the harshest criticism it has faced since its creation by the former Charest government in October 2011.

Its problems began last October, when its chief counsel, Sylvain Lussier, resigned.

Lussier had previously represented several clients of potential interest to the commission, but realized he was in an apparent conflict of interests only when the offices of one of them were raided by the provincial anti-corruption unit.

By December, the commission appeared to be improvising, and to have run out of sensational testimony for its hearings.

Its new chief counsel, Sonia LeBel, abruptly announced that the hearings would adjourn for the holidays three days later and three weeks ahead of schedule.

Then, in an apparent attempt to create a cliffhanger ending to the fall hearings that would bring back the audience for the new season in January, the commission called one of its own investigators as its final witness.

It had the investigator, Erick Roy, name participants in meetings at an exclusive private club, but without presenting any evidence of what was discussed.

Then it adjourned its hearings for eight weeks, leaving a cloud of suspicion hanging over those Roy had named.

In fact, a commission of inquiry really doesn’t know where it’s going, since it continues to gather evidence as it holds hearings and follows where the evidence leads.

And the Charbonneau commission is scrambling to meet the unrealistic demands of a mandate that is both too broad and too brief.

It’s really a mandate for three inquiries, not one. Not only does it cover every public-works contract under provincial jurisdiction over a 15-year period, it also includes provincial and municipal political financing, and underworld infiltration of the construction industry.

And the commission is supposed to produce its report by Oct. 19.

The commission appears to have put additional pressure on itself.

One of the purposes of a public inquiry is to educate the public.

To capture and hold the public’s attention, the Charbonneau commission has been trying to provide sensational entertainment.

Before the start of its fall hearings, its first chief counsel, Lussier, hyped them by promising that they would provide “spicy” revelations.

Some commentators complained impatiently this week that the commission was wasting time by going back over Dumont’s testimony.

But the commission has acted honourably in correcting the record in the same forum it gave Dumont.

And before the show goes on, this week’s hearings serve an educational purpose by warning the public, politicians and the media against jumping to hasty conclusions from future testimony.

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.

Almost Done!

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Postmedia to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Postmedia to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.